David and Judy, who leafleted at Women of
Faith in Little Rock, AR on June 16, write:Paris, today – 16 June
2012 – we distributed close to 200 ‘Would Jesus Eat Meat Today?’
booklets. We arrived before they opened the doors to a big crowd
milling around. A little while after the doors opened and the crowd
filed in, the security folks came out and asked us to leave the steps
and go down to the sidewalk. That was OK since then we could talk to
the later arrivals before they climbed the steps.

We have also
handed out copies to several small church groups where we have
presented talks (numbering from 10 to 60 attendees). Also, as
septuagenarians we go to many medical appointments, so we leave a copy
in each doctor’s office. Please keep us informed of other
opportunities in the Little Rock Arkansas area and thanks again for
your wonderful ministry.

Regarding incentives for
animal rights, I think you’re right that either conservative or
liberal paradigms can show concern for nonhuman well-being, albeit for
different reasons; there are both conservatives and liberals who
empathize with nonhumans and seek to prevent their abuse. But among
the conservative Christians with whom I associate, many are either
skeptical or cynical about “animal rights” because, as you suggest,
they think it threatens human dignity or human rights. Hence, “human
exceptionalism” has become the reactionary movement.

Compassion is indeed admirable, but I am wary of those cynics who
argue that concern for animal welfare is reducible to pure
sentimentality. This reductionist view is often reflected in the
comment, “[John Doe] has a heart for animals”, suggesting that concern
for animal welfare were merely personal or idiosyncratic, lacking good
reasons that transcend personal sentiment. If that were the case, then
those who “have no heart for animals” (who are perhaps self-indulgent
or callous) are justified in ignoring, if not condoning, animal
cruelty, because they lack such sentiments. An ethic based solely on
sentiment is not robust enough to satisfy animal rights activists such
as Tom Regan.

Paul Hansen

ReplyI agree that ethics
cannot be based on solely sentiment. If it did, then it would be
largely if not entirely reducible to self-interest, with some people
preferring kindness as an esthetic preference and most people choosing
self-indulgence over compassion. This would make a mockery of the
notions of morality and ethics. Ethics require principles, and I think
a fundamental principle should be that, if one class of individuals is
to be treated differently from another, there must be a morally
relevant reason to do so. When it comes to physical pain and
suffering, humans and many nonhumans are, as best we can tell,
indistinguishable. It is harder to gauge psychological suffering, but
careful studies have shown that many nonhumans experience fear, loss,
loneliness, and other forms of psychological distress similar to
humans. It seems, then, that using species membership to defend
mistreatment of nonhumans is an unsound ethic. We should always be on
our guard for ethical positions that happen to serve our
self-interest, because the human mind can readily become a slave to
human passions.

That being said, as advocates we must
recognize that passions generally guide behavior, not abstract ethics.
Most people have sympathy and compassion for nonhumans, and they are
deeply disturbed by images of animal abuse. We must find ways to bring
these images into consciousness, because doing so will encourage
people of conscience to behave differently. A challenge is that people
are quite egocentric, and their deepest passions generally relate to
personal needs and desires. We need to show how a plant-based diet and
other animal-friendly choices can enrich people’s lives. I welcome
comments on how this can be done.